Crime Theory Revision

A bit more revision material for theory and crime and deviance. These notes point out some quick points to make about some of the major theoretical debates and apply them to crime and deviance. I’ll add a bit on power tomorrow.

1. Structure and action

Are we free or constrained by social structures.

Structural theories

Functionalism

Marxism

Feminism

Action theories

Interactionism (symbolic Interactionism)

Labelling theory

Strengths of structural theories

? Can explain patterned nature of social organization, e.g. crime

? Can be predictive

? Can give clear suggestions for policies

Weaknesses of structural theories

? Can imply a lack of freewill

? Can be deterministic – either economic or cultural

? May lead to over-generalization, can neglect diversity and complexity, e.g. Marxism –gender blind, race-blind.

? Neglects the meanings which actors give for their behaviour

? Tend to be positivist in methodology

Strengths of action theories

? Incorporates meaning of action to actors

? Acknowledges that order comes from interaction

? Acknowledges our sense of freewill

? Acknowledges that agents have power

? Focuses on micro level – therefore not abstract and avoids ‘imposition problem’

Weaknesses of action theories

? Neglects structure – therefore hard to explain the patterned regularity of social order

? Neglects structure – therefore lacks a coherent explanation of the social basis of power (e.g. economic or cultural, group based)

? Methodology tends to subjectivity and lacks reliability and representativeness

2. Consensus and conflict

Consensus theories

Functionalism

Sub-cultural functionalism

Liberal feminism

? Assume that society is characterised by consensus over most issues, or that consensus can be achieved most of the time.

? Society requires consensus to integrate it and hold it together, without consensus, society will fragment.

Criticisms of consensus theory

Mistakes control for consensus

Neglects differences in power and social inequalities which negate the idea of consensus

Faulty assumption – society not ‘held together’ by consensus – simply that society consists of varying groups and institutions vying for power in different situations at different times with various outcomes.

Conflict theories

Marxism

Neo-Marxism

Marxist Feminism

Radical Feminism

? Society is best understood as characterised by conflict

? Frequently a Marxist influenced theory

? Conflict reflects existence of inequality – can be economic or cultural

? Conflict often resolved through the use of power – either economic, cultural, military, or political.

Criticisms of conflict theory

? Exaggerates level and significance of conflict

? Inadequate view of power – often zero-sum

? Conflict may not be inevitable – some views suggest it is

Synthesis

Society is characterised by both conflict and consensus. Models of society focusing on one or the other will inevitably be partial –sociology needs a more complex definition/ conceptualisation of what society is – not just equivalent to a state or nation state.

More recent views:

Society as ‘networks’ - of different institutions and different levels of institution. May be characterised by consensus and conflict, and ‘flows’ of power – Manuel Castells.

Importance of globalisation and information technology.

Postmodernism

Not really an action theory, but suggests that society is very open-ended. We can create our identity as we please and are not really constrained by social structures – whatever they are (postmodernists are sceptical that such things even exist). We live in a media saturated world and construct identities and lives through media influence and consumption. No apparent conflict, no need for consensus. Free floating individuals. No society!